Schottlaender, Brian. “Why Metadata? Why Me? Why Now?”
Schottlaender seeks to connect the library cataloging community to the broader context for metadata use, such as the internet, government, and art world. He tries to explain why metadata is necessary in today’s information world, with one reason being information indefiniteness. He also contends that specialized information resources require management of their individual component parts—hence data about data. In turn, metadata has to be supported by schema, or sets of rules such as MaRC, to maintain essential access to fluid and complex information. With the proliferation of information in a variety of contexts, rising expectations surround metadata.
First, Schottlaender provides several definitions of metadata. For example, one description was a “cloud of collateral information around a data object.” He defines metadata as “structured data that describe the characteristics of a resource” and recognizes an “inherent relationship between data and their metadata.” In other words, if you have data of any sizeable amount, you must have “uber-data” to describe, identify, access, and manage that data. Metadata is akin to a big filing system, but in order for the filing system of data to work, you need organizational rules—therefore schema.
Schottlaender then proceeds to explain schema, which are the standards for encoding information, and he focuses on three types: encoding, metadata, and architectural schema. Encoding schema comprise markup languages such as MaRC and HTML, whereas metadata schema range from descriptive rules like AACR2 to Dublin Core, which specifically describes “document-like objects” in an online environment. Lastly, architectural schema discussed include RDF and the Warwick Framework. Schottlaender makes the point that each type of schema supports the goal of metadata. For example, SGML is a highly structured method to deal with complex packaged resources; AACR2 creates bibliographic access points like titles and related works; identifiers include ISBNs and URLs; and Warwick Framework software accepts diverse data to act as a “comprehensive infrastructure for network resource description.” Schottlaender affirms that “multiple schema are at work managing different types of objects.”
Next, Schottlaender addresses the relationship between the library cataloging community and metadata. Metadata concerns content management and cataloging involves ordering relationships among content. Furthermore, cataloging pertains to standards, controlled vocabulary, and systematic description and classification. In the online environment and other non-library cataloging communities, metadata’s usefulness is now being seriously considered and catalogers have the experience to offer input about standards and designing effective systems. Schottlaender argues that cataloging and broader metadata applications have correlating goals: to help users access, find, and choose information.
Schottlaender observes that almost all schema are library-based, such as AACR2 and LCSH. Yet, he says that outside of the library cataloging community, the “utility and desirability of content standards” has become progressively more apparent, especially in the online environment. To cope with massive amounts of data, catalogers are being consulted by the metadata community and cooperation is growing, such as Dublin Core building on FRBR’s model. Schottlaender predicts further cooperation because of the cataloging goal to identify unique information and catalogers’ greater experience, which metadata communities need in relation to rights management—particularly with commercial and legal implications in the online environment.
Schottlaender concludes that challenges abound for cataloging and metadata communities to jointly tackle, most of which involve the online environment. One such challenge is the fact that most online documents lack permanence, or are not stable over time or anchored to a particular location. Having controlled vocabulary to allow compatibility across different content communities is another challenge. However, the most significant challenge is interoperability, whether in language or structure, between different systems to effectively communicate or exchange data.
From this article, I learned that metadata is unavoidable and that metadata use outside of the library cataloging community demands cataloging standards and catalogers’ proficiency. Still, the reader is left wondering exactly what metadata is after some ten pages. Also, Schottlaender’s title sounds like an existential crisis and he implies that is what is currently happening surrounding the proliferation of data. His article presents a somewhat biased opinion that non-library communities are in desperate need for professional LIS assistance to deal with data and seems to suggest that any non-library cataloging community metadata innovation would be entirely futile.
southernscholastic 